Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[klutedavid]

Do you actually believe that Jesus used the word "woman" in a disrespectful manner toward
the mother who bore Him for 9 months and raised Him?

Hello Der Alter.

Could the Christ be disrespectful?

Certainly not, though Jesus was stating what His earthly mother had known for
a very long time. Mary was not the authentic mother of the incarnate Christ.

If you differ in your interpretation Der Alter, please explain why Jesus calls his
own mother, 'woman'.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I know Jesus is one person.
That Person (the mind) the Son of God, is either God, or man. Which do you say he is? The mind of God is God, God's mind does not change and start thinking like a man, and behaving like a man. If Jesus mind was not fully God's mind, then he is not God, because that is Who God is. Not only was he tempted, which only the “You,” the “Who,” the “Person,” the “mind,” is tempted (Romans 7:23; James 1:14), but he did not know the Day or hour, which only the LORD-Yhwh knows. There is only one person that is the Son of God. Either that person stopped being God so that he could be tempted, which God can't do, or he remained God and never was tempted, which also is not true, because he was tempted, else the person was a man. Seeing as there is only one Person that is Jesus, that person was either tempted, or he was not, can't be both. What this doctrine is saying, whether it is admitted, or not, is one person Jesus the man was tempted, and the other person Jesus the God was not tempted, trying to pass it off as his nature, flesh, and Spirit, rather then his mind. Or saying Jesus had two minds, making two persons. We can have the mind of God, but that does not mean we actually have God's mind, we did not steal it from Him (and I don't mean that literally).

We have to be careful we don't debase God, by saying God can become lower then He is Romans 1. And this doctrine states God has two natures, that is if you say Jesus the person is the God. There is a difference in God's word became man, and God became man. Jesus either has the mind of man, or mind of God, else a man with the mind of God, but cannot be God with the mind of man, which goes against Romans 1.

"not whether there could be perfect human image of God" You did not specify, which is why I also included the resurrection.

If you go to the extreme of God's image of Himself is Himself, then it is no longer an image, but is Himself.

Hopefully I have not mis-spoken or misrepresented the teaching and will continue not to do so - but we are now covering a lot of ground here.

We started this exchange not asking Who or what Jesus is, but asking if we could articulate what it meant to us for God to have a Perfect Image of Himself in His Mind- which I understood you admitted He could and also that such an Image would be Real – and we seemingly agreed to at least that much. I submitted that Perfect Image is One Person of the Trinity – God the Son – without adding (assuming it was understood) that the Person having that Image of Himself is God the Father. And those Persons are both Eternal – no beginning and no end. We may use multiple names for each Person and also for God collectively, but for clarity sake going forward I will try to be more specific with names to avoid confusion.

Up to that point I meant only to discuss this concept of what it would mean to say God has an Image of Himself. Not to say this explains how Three (or Two) Persons are One Being – but it does go to our at least being able to reason out that much or at least conceptualize some the ideas presented in the Trinity Doctrine. It is still unclear to me what you meant by saying you think the Image God has of Himself is Real – perhaps you could clarify if you really do conceive of God’s Image of Himself as being God the Son.

The idea of an Incarnation, a human that was at conception and remains now both God (the Son) and a man is related but a different discussion all together and something we take on Faith. Faith because everything else we can perceive has a single nature – not two; ex: a rock is a rock not a rock and also at same time a bird. Jesus on the other hand has two natures, Divine and human. Having two natures is something which eludes our full understanding (hence Faith required). The Christian teaching is that same Real Image we spoke of, the same Person, God the Son, becomes a man, Jesus Christ the Son of God (-Son of man as in human). But the teaching is He also that He remains God the Son at the same time. So Jesus is both God the Son (Perfect Image of God the Father) and the Son of God (a Perfect man). The examples given in Scripture – His temptation, His human intellect/will struggle in the Garden, His not knowing the hour of His Return – all demonstrate that He is very much a human like us. At the same time, the Authority with which He spoke, His own acclamations (like calling Himself the Lord of the Sabbath), the Miracles He performed – all support His Divinity – that He is also God the Son.

And back to the point about supposedly not knowing when He would return. Am unclear how we should assume the only explanation possible is that He is not really God the Son. (paraphrasing Saint Thomas) We are told as humans not to judge others, yet Jesus did so as a man – which requires a knowledge/view only God could have - so rather absurd to think He would have that knowledge yet lack something of lessor import like His appointed hour. Saint John also has Jesus “knowing all things” after His Resurrection as well. Surely all things would include His Return. We could also say Jesus (man-Son of God) knew the hour but also knew (as God the Son) that the hour of His Return was not something all of mankind was to know. Some have speculated for same reason that perhaps the information was withheld from His human intellect before His Resurrection. Either way we do not need to assume His not revealing the hour can only mean He is not God the Son.
So and to the point of this thread - the Scriptures where His humanity is proven True are not evidence His Divinity is a false teaching and neither are the Scriptures support His Divinity proving that His humanity is a false teaching. Those Scriptures stand together, united as a whole only under the teaching that He is BOTH God the Son (God) and Son of man (human).

 

[Der Alte]

Hello Der Alter.

Could the Christ be disrespectful?

Certainly not, though Jesus was stating what His earthly mother had known for
a very long time. Mary was not the authentic mother of the incarnate Christ.

If you differ in your interpretation Der Alter, please explain why Jesus calls his
own mother, 'woman'.

Mary nourished Jesus for 9 months in her womb. She was as much His mother as the mother of any person ever born.

 

[prodromos]

Hello Prodromos.

Joseph was not married to Mary, how can you then claim that Joseph is the legal father?

She was betrothed to Joseph. Betrothal carries all the legal force of marriage.

Not only was Mary a virgin at conception, Mary was not married to Joseph when she conceived
the Child. Never the less the Child is certainly not the offspring of Joseph and Mary.

He is the biological offspring of Mary however, and the legal offspring of Joseph.

Jesus called God His Father.

God's word also refers to Joseph as His father.

 

[Der Alte]

Hopefully I have not mis-spoken or misrepresented the teaching and will continue not to do so - but we are now covering a lot of ground here.

We started this exchange not asking Who or what Jesus is, but asking if we could articulate what it meant to us for God to have a Perfect Image of Himself in His Mind- which I understood you admitted He could and also that such an Image would be Real – and we seemingly agreed to at least that much. I submitted that Perfect Image is One Person of the Trinity – God the Son – without adding (assuming it was understood) that the Person having that Image of Himself is God the Father. And those Persons are both Eternal – no beginning and no end. We may use multiple names for each Person and also for God collectively, but for clarity sake going forward I will try to be more specific with names to avoid confusion.

Up to that point I meant only to discuss this concept of what it would mean to say God has an Image of Himself. Not to say this explains how Three (or Two) Persons are One Being – but it does go to our at least being able to reason out that much or at least conceptualize some the ideas presented in the Trinity Doctrine. It is still unclear to me what you meant by saying you think the Image God has of Himself is Real – perhaps you could clarify if you really do conceive of God’s Image of Himself as being God the Son.

The idea of an Incarnation, a human that was at conception and remains now both God (the Son) and a man is related but a different discussion all together and something we take on Faith. Faith because everything else we can perceive has a single nature – not two; ex: a rock is a rock not a rock and also at same time a bird. Jesus on the other hand has two natures, Divine and human. Having two natures is something which eludes our full understanding (hence Faith required). The Christian teaching is that same Real Image we spoke of, the same Person, God the Son, becomes a man, Jesus Christ the Son of God (-Son of man as in human). But the teaching is He also that He remains God the Son at the same time. So Jesus is both God the Son (Perfect Image of God the Father) and the Son of God (a Perfect man). The examples given in Scripture – His temptation, His human intellect/will struggle in the Garden, His not knowing the hour of His Return – all demonstrate that He is very much a human like us. At the same time, the Authority with which He spoke, His own acclamations (like calling Himself the Lord of the Sabbath), the Miracles He performed – all support His Divinity – that He is also God the Son.

And back to the point about supposedly not knowing when He would return. Am unclear how we should assume the only explanation possible is that He is not really God the Son. (paraphrasing Saint Thomas) We are told as humans not to judge others, yet Jesus did so as a man – which requires a knowledge/view only God could have - so rather absurd to think He would have that knowledge yet lack something of lessor import like His appointed hour. Saint John also has Jesus “knowing all things” after His Resurrection as well. Surely all things would include His Return. We could also say Jesus (man-Son of God) knew the hour but also knew (as God the Son) that the hour of His Return was not something all of mankind was to know. Some have speculated for same reason that perhaps the information was withheld from His human intellect before His Resurrection. Either way we do not need to assume His not revealing the hour can only mean He is not God the Son.
So and to the point of this thread - the Scriptures where His humanity is proven True are not evidence His Divinity is a false teaching and neither are the Scriptures support His Divinity proving that His humanity is a false teaching. Those Scriptures stand together, united as a whole only under the teaching that He is BOTH God the Son (God) and Son of man (human).

Here is my explanation why Jesus did not know the day or hour of His return. Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}​

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: ​

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​

In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.

In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”

(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)

“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”

(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)

Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.

What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.

“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108

Link to: Hoover Article​

 

[klutedavid]

Mary nourished Jesus for 9 months in her womb. She was as much His mother as the mother of any person ever born.

Hello Der Alter.

Have you heard of surrogate mothers? They have an implanted, fertile embryo.
They carry the child and nourish the child in their womb, but they are not the
biological mother, they are not the legal mother.

Why do you claim that because Mary was found to be with child, that Mary is
not only the biological mother, she is also the legal and real mother of God?

 

[klutedavid]

Here is my explanation why Jesus did not know the day or hour of His return. Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}​

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: ​

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​

In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.

In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”

(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)

“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”

(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)

Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.

What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.

“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108

Link to: Hoover Article​

Hello Der Alter.

An excellent post, the verses in Paul's letter to the Philippians, removes the veil
completely from the true and visible YHWH.

 

[prodromos]

Have you heard of surrogate mothers? They have an implanted, fertile embryo.
They carry the child and nourish the child in their womb, but they are not the
biological mother, they are not the legal mother.

The archangel Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive in her womb and bear a son, not simply that she would bear a son as you are suggesting. But beside that, if Jesus did not take His human nature from us, that is from Mary, then His death, resurrection and ascension would have only benefited His own unique human nature and would have done nothing for ours. It was only by uniting Himself to our nature that He was able to destroy the hold that death had over us. If His flesh was not from Mary, then there is no salvation for any of us.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Either that person stopped being God so that he could be tempted, which God can't do, or he remained God and never was tempted, which also is not true, because he was tempted, else the person was a man.

The scripture does NOT say that God cannot be tempted. Moses says that He was tempted.

You shall not tempt the Lord your God as you tempted him at Massah, Deuteronomy 6:16

The idea that God cannot be tempted is based on an erroneous translation of James 1:13. But James does NOT say that God cannot be tempted. It says that God IS not tempted. There is a difference.

Let no one say, being tempted -- `From God I am tempted,' for God IS not tempted of evil, and Himself doth tempt no one, Young's Literal Translation

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Here is my explanation why Jesus did not know the day or hour of His return. Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {who,} εν {in [the]} μορφη {form} θεου {of god} υπαρχων {subsisting,} ουχ {not} αρπαγμον {something to be used to his own advantage} ηγησατο το {esteemed it} ειναι {the being} ισα {equal} θεω {with god;}​

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” in the KJV, which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present infinitive, not a future tense. “the being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: ​

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, cf. Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men, vs. 7. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

If Jesus was only a mere human being, how does a human being, “humble himself and become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no obedience or humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Were the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also obedient, did they also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​

In verses 10,11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23, which refers to יהוה/YHWH], to Jesus as I have shown above!

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.

In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”

(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)

“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”

(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)

Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.

What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.

“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108

Link to: Hoover Article​

BTW my thoughts expressed earlier as partially indicated were not "my explanation" but rather me briefly attempting to summarize several from others from thousands of years ago.

I think there are several acceptable answers that preserve both His Divinity and humanity. Am unclear here exactly what the assertion in your reply is Der Alter except perhaps to say that in having two natures (forms), not everything (knowledge wise) was shared between the God the Son and the Son of man. Am ok with that. Am pretty sure that answer was also one explanation given long that also retains Him having the two natures (forms) simulaneously without suggesting as the other poster here had that Jesus cannot be God if He did not know His appointed hour. Am happy believing we were not meant to know, so it was kept from us.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

/

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hello Der Alter.

Have you heard of surrogate mothers? They have an implanted, fertile embryo.
They carry the child and nourish the child in their womb, but they are not the
biological mother, they are not the legal mother.

Why do you claim that because Mary was found to be with child, that Mary is
not only the biological mother, she is also the legal and real mother of God?

Klute, why should we disregard what the Messenger of God said to Mary?

 

[Der Alte]

BTW my thoughts expressed earlier as partially indicated were not "my explanation" but rather me briefly attempting to summarize several from others from thousands of years ago.

I think there are several acceptable answers that preserve both His Divinity and humanity. Am unclear here exactly what the assertion in your reply is Der Alter except perhaps to say that in having two natures (forms), not everything (knowledge wise) was shared between the God the Son and the Son of man. Am ok with that. Am pretty sure that answer was also one explanation given long that also retains Him having the two natures (forms) simulaneously without suggesting as the other poster here had that Jesus cannot be God if He did not know His appointed hour. Am happy believing we were not meant to know, so it was kept from us.

I think the why Jesus did not know the hour of His return is in verse 2:7. The word translated "made Himself of no reputation" which means to make empty, void, to abase, neutralize, etc.

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

G2758 κενόω kenoō ken-o'-o
From G2756; to make empty, that is, (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify: - make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.​

 

[redleghunter]

I think the why Jesus did not know the hour of His return is in verse 2:7. The word translated "made Himself of no reputation" which means to make empty, void, to abase, neutralize, etc.

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

G2758 κενόω kenoō ken-o'-o
From G2756; to make empty, that is, (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify: - make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.​

That was a very careful and responsible answer.

Others take it to mean too much. As in Kenosis, the emptying of His Deity. Which Colossians 2 shows us is not the case.

 

[7xlightray]

Hello LightRay.

You made a very interesting statement in your post #793.

This for me is probably the heart of the relevation of the Christ to humanity, you have stated a profound enigma.

Paul describes Jesus Christ as the visible image of the divine, in the verses below.

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them
from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Obviously Paul sees Jesus as the visible image to humanity of the invisible God, so is Paul's
understanding correct?

Let's look at what Jesus has to say about His Father (the invisible God).

John 1
18 No one has seen God at any time...

John 5
37...You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

Now LightRay I have a question for you?

So according to Jesus, no one has ever seen, heard, or known God. Then who was it then that the patriarchs
and the prophets saw in person, and in their visions? These folk said that they had seen and heard God!

If you can answer this question LightRay, then you do indeed understand the mystery and the revelation of
the scripture.

Hello klutedavid,

We need to keep those passages in context, like 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15 is speaking of after his resurrection.

God spoke to Moses differently then any other, Moses was set apart from others in the way God spoke and revealed Himself to Moses Numbers 12:5-9, and Moses was a type of Christ to come. Moses heard the voice of God. Also notice the scriptures speak of God speaking to Moses face to face Exodus 33:11, but Moses did not see God's face. Moses saw God's face, but he did not literally see his face, it's an expression. We have to keep this consideration in mind when hearing Jesus words. Seeing in the Bible can also refer to seeing with the mind.

God did not speak by His Son in O/T times Hebrews 1:1-2. So we know it was not His Son Jesus. How did the writer of Hebrews know?...when you accept this speaks of Christ Isaiah 45:4-5, then you will be on your way to knowing Who the scriptures say the true God, and lord is.

 

[o2bwise]

Hi,

A few months ago, I referenced every single NT occurrence of the Greek word theos and entered them into an excel spreadsheet. I included the following columns.

Verse
Who is theos in the passage?
Is Jesus mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?
Is the Holy Spirit mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?

I am sure my numbers may be ever so slightly off, but here is some summary information.

1130 times theos is the Father
5 times theos is the Son
0 times theos is the Holy Spirit
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is referred to in the passage 1061 times and as someone other than theos.
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is not referred to in the passage 69 times.
So with a population size of 1130, 94% of the time Jesus is mentioned, but as someone other than theos.


One of the things I get out of the above is that for the trinity to be the truth, the Bible must "speak" in a manner completely contrary to how human beings normally communicate.

It would be like suppose 1130 times Joe the fireman is mentioned and out of those 1130 times, Jack the police officer is also mentioned. Now, this piece of literature does have other (related) passages, but to say

"Joe the fireman and Jack the fireman" would be considered an extraordinary level of departure from how humankind normally communicates.


I believe Jesus was begotten a divine Son due to His lineage, His Father being God.

I believe the Bible almost entirely likes to refer to Father only as theos.

I believe the Bible prefers to refer to Jesus not as theos but as Son of theos and part of its delineating Father and Son is to refer to Father as theos and the Son as His Son.

I am happy doing the same.


Blessings,

Tony

 

[Wgw]

Hi,

A few months ago, I referenced every single NT occurrence of the Greek word theos and entered them into an excel spreadsheet. I included the following columns.

Verse
Who is theos in the passage?
Is Jesus mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?
Is the Holy Spirit mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?

I am sure my numbers may be ever so slightly off, but here is some summary information.

1130 times theos is the Father
5 times theos is the Son
0 times theos is the Holy Spirit
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is referred to in the passage 1061 times and as someone other than theos.
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is not referred to in the passage 69 times.
So with a population size of 1130, 94% of the time Jesus is mentioned, but as someone other than theos.


One of the things I get out of the above is that for the trinity to be the truth, the Bible must "speak" in a manner completely contrary to how human beings normally communicate.

It would be like suppose 1130 times Joe the fireman is mentioned and out of those 1130 times, Jack the police officer is also mentioned. Now, this piece of literature does have other (related) passages, but to say

"Joe the fireman and Jack the fireman" would be considered an extraordinary level of departure from how humankind normally communicates.


I believe Jesus was begotten a divine Son due to His lineage, His Father being God.

I believe the Bible almost entirely likes to refer to Father only as theos.

I believe the Bible prefers to refer to Jesus not as theos but as Son of theos and part of its delineating Father and Son is to refer to Father as theos and the Son as His Son.

I am happy doing the same.


Blessings,

Tony

Your methodology and logic is flawed. By your own admission, on five occasions, Scripture clearly identifies our Lord as God. On the other hand, in the 1,061 verses, never is it explicitly said our Lord is not God.

Thus, you have no real point; your use of statistics to attempt to prove Arianism is frankly disingenious. Particularly your misleading labelling of them.

 

[7xlightray]

Hopefully I have not mis-spoken or misrepresented the teaching and will continue not to do so - but we are now covering a lot of ground here.

We started this exchange not asking Who or what Jesus is, but asking if we could articulate what it meant to us for God to have a Perfect Image of Himself in His Mind- which I understood you admitted He could and also that such an Image would be Real – and we seemingly agreed to at least that much. I submitted that Perfect Image is One Person of the Trinity – God the Son – without adding (assuming it was understood) that the Person having that Image of Himself is God the Father. And those Persons are both Eternal – no beginning and no end. We may use multiple names for each Person and also for God collectively, but for clarity sake going forward I will try to be more specific with names to avoid confusion.

Up to that point I meant only to discuss this concept of what it would mean to say God has an Image of Himself. Not to say this explains how Three (or Two) Persons are One Being – but it does go to our at least being able to reason out that much or at least conceptualize some the ideas presented in the Trinity Doctrine. It is still unclear to me what you meant by saying you think the Image God has of Himself is Real – perhaps you could clarify if you really do conceive of God’s Image of Himself as being God the Son.

The idea of an Incarnation, a human that was at conception and remains now both God (the Son) and a man is related but a different discussion all together and something we take on Faith. Faith because everything else we can perceive has a single nature – not two; ex: a rock is a rock not a rock and also at same time a bird. Jesus on the other hand has two natures, Divine and human. Having two natures is something which eludes our full understanding (hence Faith required). The Christian teaching is that same Real Image we spoke of, the same Person, God the Son, becomes a man, Jesus Christ the Son of God (-Son of man as in human). But the teaching is He also that He remains God the Son at the same time. So Jesus is both God the Son (Perfect Image of God the Father) and the Son of God (a Perfect man). The examples given in Scripture – His temptation, His human intellect/will struggle in the Garden, His not knowing the hour of His Return – all demonstrate that He is very much a human like us. At the same time, the Authority with which He spoke, His own acclamations (like calling Himself the Lord of the Sabbath), the Miracles He performed – all support His Divinity – that He is also God the Son.

When I said “Your misrepresenting me.” I was not referring to doctrine, but “Begrudgingly.”

You are saying God the Son, I say Son of God.

All I'm saying is if God made a perfect image of Himself, there is a certain range of “perfect” that could be achieved. You are saying a perfect image of God, IS God. That is no longer an image of God, but IS God. If you say God is three persons, yet one God, then the perfect image of this God is three persons, yet one God. All three would need to become human, yet in one body. This is one of the problems with this doctrine, is that God the Son became flesh, 100% human, yet remained 100% God, then really he remained like the Father and Holy Spirit that did not become human. Not unless God Himself actually became human, and stopped being God Himself, which is not possible.

What we need to see is this is a test of God Deuteronomy 13:1-3. God called Israel, Israel is the called, but out of Israel God chose some, and whatever was written before, was written for us.

Jesus was the perfect “human” image of God. It does not say Jesus is the perfect God image of God. ...not sure if that came out sounding right.

We will also partake of that divine nature 2 Peter 1:4. It's not a impossible concept in my mind, having two natures, but if we think one is the God, then problems arise.

When we speak like this: “The examples given in Scripture – His temptation, His human intellect/will struggle in the Garden, His not knowing the hour of His Return – all demonstrate that He is very much a human like us.” it speaks of Jesus having two minds, which is two persons.

This “At the same time, the Authority with which He spoke, His own acclamations (like calling Himself the Lord of the Sabbath), the Miracles He performed – all support His Divinity – that He is also God the Son.” speaks of the rest from our works, this is not referring to the original creation, but the new creation. When we understand the new creation is all through the Son, in the plan of God the Father, then we will understand what the apostles are referring to when saying things like God created through the Son. Notice it never says created heaven and earth, the Father created heaven and earth. And miracles, sure don't prove one is God. In fact in Acts it says God was with him, and we know the Father was working in, and through him.

And back to the point about supposedly not knowing when He would return. Am unclear how we should assume the only explanation possible is that He is not really God the Son.

It is because only LORD knows the Day Zechariah 14:7. "(paraphrasing Saint Thomas)" This to requires understanding.

We are told as humans not to judge others, yet Jesus did so as a man – which requires a knowledge/view only God could have - so rather absurd to think He would have that knowledge yet lack something of lessor import like His appointed hour.

I guess that would make Peter the God also Acts 5:9-10; Acts 8:20-24, who also had the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Saint John also has Jesus “knowing all things” after His Resurrection as well. Surely all things would include His Return. We could also say Jesus (man-Son of God) knew the hour but also knew (as God the Son) that the hour of His Return was not something all of mankind was to know. Some have speculated for same reason that perhaps the information was withheld from His human intellect before His Resurrection. Either way we do not need to assume His not revealing the hour can only mean He is not God the Son.

Not only does this refer to the Son, but even the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit was another person that is...

Mark 13:32 (KJV) But of that day and that hour knoweth no man (this is the word G3762 - oudeis – no one, nothing, NOT the word G444 – anthrōpos – human being, man), no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

By using this word “G3762 – oudeis (a powerful negating conjunction that leaves no exceptions)” he is excluding all others. No one else! We must understand the N/T in light of the O/T.

 

[7xlightray]

The scripture does NOT say that God cannot be tempted. Moses says that He was tempted.

You shall not tempt the Lord your God as you tempted him at Massah, Deuteronomy 6:16

The idea that God cannot be tempted is based on an erroneous translation of James 1:13. But James does NOT say that God cannot be tempted. It says that God IS not tempted. There is a difference.

Let no one say, being tempted -- `From God I am tempted,' for God IS not tempted of evil, and Himself doth tempt no one, Young's Literal Translation

If we understand God, then even without scripture stating God cannot be tempted, we know there is no way God can be tempted. God is self sufficient, and is in need of nothing, in fact all things come from Him, so what can God be tempted with.

James 1:13 “not able to be tempted” - G551. Apeirastos - untried, inexperienced, untempted, incapable of being tempted. - 551 apeírastos (from 1 /A "not" and 3985 /peirázō, "susceptible to enticement, allurement") – properly, unable to be tempted, lacking the very capacity to be enticed by evil or influenced by sin.

 

[redleghunter]

Hi,

A few months ago, I referenced every single NT occurrence of the Greek word theos and entered them into an excel spreadsheet. I included the following columns.

Verse
Who is theos in the passage?
Is Jesus mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?
Is the Holy Spirit mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?

I am sure my numbers may be ever so slightly off, but here is some summary information.

1130 times theos is the Father
5 times theos is the Son
0 times theos is the Holy Spirit
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is referred to in the passage 1061 times and as someone other than theos.
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is not referred to in the passage 69 times.
So with a population size of 1130, 94% of the time Jesus is mentioned, but as someone other than theos.


One of the things I get out of the above is that for the trinity to be the truth, the Bible must "speak" in a manner completely contrary to how human beings normally communicate.

It would be like suppose 1130 times Joe the fireman is mentioned and out of those 1130 times, Jack the police officer is also mentioned. Now, this piece of literature does have other (related) passages, but to say

"Joe the fireman and Jack the fireman" would be considered an extraordinary level of departure from how humankind normally communicates.


I believe Jesus was begotten a divine Son due to His lineage, His Father being God.

I believe the Bible almost entirely likes to refer to Father only as theos.

I believe the Bible prefers to refer to Jesus not as theos but as Son of theos and part of its delineating Father and Son is to refer to Father as theos and the Son as His Son.

I am happy doing the same.


Blessings,

Tony

Thanks to Bill Gates we can now determine the Nature of God...Wow.